3 ms·
We were never gonna scale our population much further anyways. Arguably, the social changes we’ve seen could be a response to our reaching a (very approximate)
by BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
We were never gonna scale our population much further anyways. Arguably, the social changes we’ve seen could be a response to our reaching a (very approximate) carrying capacity and experiencing friction against further growth in myriad ways. That’s the way I’ve been thinking about it at least.
> That wasn’t previously really an option for most people - for a lot of structural reasons.
I’d be interested to hear more about this if its no trouble. I’m in my twenties so not much knowledge of this stuff.
- abenga 2y ago> I’d be interested to hear more about this if its no trouble. For women, at least, you could not be independent (legally at least). You needed a man to co-sign applications to open bank accounts/credit cards/etc. Fewer well paying jobs were available to you. All these were worse still if you were a member of a minority.
- AndrewKemendo 2y agoEffectively what the other response said. Women in the US were effectively treated like second class citizens across the board and were not permitted to have any kind of independence. The history of sexism in humans is pretty disturbing and creates a foundational schism in the structure and coherence of society. The concept of equality and “freedom of opportunity” or “freedom from oppression” is unfortunately not something humans have ever functionally been able to demonstrate (at least in any way that transmits to other cultures or generations)